Health and legislation

  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 2:36 AM GMT
    I didn't want to derail another topic, so I'm making this one.

    Obviously, North Americans are not able to police themselves when it comes to a remotely healthy lifestyle. So, to what degree should lawyers intercede on the behalf of their citizens?

    Approximately 1 000 000 people die each year due to diet related disease, according to CDC statistics. That is almost more than every other cause of death combined. These are preventable deaths, due to the products available and the lack of self control.

    There are laws about guns, drugs, violence, and driving, in the interest of public safety. What is your stance on keeping people safe from themselves?

    I'm not convinced a legal intervention is the right move. I'm just curious what others think.

    Edit: I just realized this is in the wrong place. Sorry guys! If anyone has the ability to move ths, feel free...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 2:46 AM GMT
    The funny thing is that the unhealthy people in question will be the ones that will protest any sort of government intervention.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 2:47 AM GMT
    xrichx saidThe funny thing is that the unhealthy people in question will be the ones that will protest any sort of government intervention.


    Which are the majority, at this point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    Well, it's hard to tell. I wouldn't say a majority. But certainly a large amount. In the US at least.

    http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

    Problem is that the CDC uses the antiquated BMI to determine if a person is obese. Which means most guys on this site, including myself, are considered obese. Plus, they use telephone surveys to gather data. So it's certainly not a very good way to sample data, considering more and more people are moving towards cell phones.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 3:02 AM GMT
    xrichx saidWell, it's hard to tell. I wouldn't say a majority. But certainly a large amount. In the US at least.

    http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

    Problem is that the CDC uses the antiquated BMI to determine if a person is obese. Which means most guys on this site, including myself, are considered obese. Plus, they use telephone surveys to gather data. So it's certainly not a very good way to sample data, considering more and more people are moving towards cell phones.


    I don't know if I'd worry about athletic people throwing off the data. There's so few that they'd be those random points that just get statistically omitted.

    The sources aren't crazy accurate, but they're definitely a concerning indicator.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 4:09 AM GMT
    Letting the law intercede so that people can become healthier is as useless as most weight-loss products found on late night infomercials. Should legal interventions ever become a reality, then the variability of negative outcomes will be countless. McDonald's, Coca-Cola and your favorite desserts at your favorite restaurants will most likely disappear. From that point, where does the law draw the line on what is considered healthy and unhealthy?

    In the States, the Department of Health & Human Services created a program called Health People 2020. The program identifies the biggest health detriments and threats to the country. The goal is to work with community health facilities from all over the country to educate the population as much as possible. Once 2020 comes around, the goals will be revised to see what worked and what didn't.

    Despite how well you educate and inform people on the negative aspects of unhealthy living, it's remains the individual's choice. Removing those choices is flat out wrong!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 4:44 AM GMT
    The government has no rights nor business to be policing ppl's lives. If they want to be fat. That's their problem. If they want to be healthy that's their problem. We already have the government in our backyards we don't want it to be in hour houses either.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 5:02 AM GMT
    Considering he many people had opinions about it before, I'm surprised this thread is so dead now...
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 5:07 AM GMT
    may11 saidThe government has no rights nor business to be policing ppl's lives. If they want to be fat. That's their problem. If they want to be healthy that's their problem. We already have the government in our backyards we don't want it to be in hour houses either.


    That's the thing, it's not just their problem. The Globe and Mail estimates that it cost taxpayers $7 billion in 2010. That's $500 per US taxpayer.

    While guns can't draw the same parallel, drugs certainly can. Why does the US spend billions preventing drug use for citizen safety, yet allows 1 000 000 to die and cost Americans $7 billion due to obesity, and not step in on that at all?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:10 AM GMT
    Actually, not the government, but most companies are taking this into their own hands, if you considered that most of their health cost are rising per employee. They are in a sense intervening, by providing better snacks, health cafeteria options at work. Additionally, incentives to join health clubs and even to the point of giving incentives to reduce weight and healthy habits that transpired to lower medical cost per paycheck. Since, most American receive health benefits through their employers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:24 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    may11 saidThe government has no rights nor business to be policing ppl's lives. If they want to be fat. That's their problem. If they want to be healthy that's their problem. We already have the government in our backyards we don't want it to be in hour houses either.


    That's the thing, it's not just their problem. The Globe and Mail estimates that it cost taxpayers $7 billion in 2010. That's $500 per US taxpayer.

    While guns can't draw the same parallel, drugs certainly can. Why does the US spend billions preventing drug use for citizen safety, yet allows 1 000 000 to die and cost Americans $7 billion due to obesity, and not step in on that at all?


    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:27 AM GMT
    Are you joking?This is a free Republic.The government has no right to tell any adult American what they can eat.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 5:29 AM GMT
    may11 said
    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.


    How do drugs kill more than the user? Unless they're smoked, drugs are pretty personal, except for the social cost.

    I got it by dividing $7 billion by the number of US taxpayers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:29 AM GMT
    WickedRyan saidAre you joking?This is a free Republic.The government has no right to tell any adult American what they can eat.



    +++100000
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 5:30 AM GMT
    WickedRyan saidAre you joking?This is a free Republic.The government has no right to tell any adult American what they can eat.


    I'm aware. But to the point where it costs $7 billion and 1 million lives a year?

    I'm not convinced government intervention is the answer, but an intervention is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:36 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    may11 said
    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.


    How do drugs kill more than the user? Unless they're smoked, drugs are pretty personal, except for the social cost.

    I got it by dividing $7 billion by the number of US taxpayers.



    DWI. It hit home once. And she wasn't fat! Crack head would be the right term.

    I don't think you know how many ppl the USA has? To be getting a number like that. We have 315 million ppl.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:40 AM GMT
    may11 said
    Medjai said
    may11 said
    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.


    How do drugs kill more than the user? Unless they're smoked, drugs are pretty personal, except for the social cost.

    I got it by dividing $7 billion by the number of US taxpayers.



    DWI. It hit home once. And she wasn't fat! Crack head would be the right term.

    I don't think you know how many ppl the USA has? To be getting a number like that. We have 315 million ppl.



    Under half of that number are actual taxpayers. Still you are off.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 5:42 AM GMT
    may11 said
    Medjai said
    may11 said
    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.


    How do drugs kill more than the user? Unless they're smoked, drugs are pretty personal, except for the social cost.

    I got it by dividing $7 billion by the number of US taxpayers.



    DWI. It hit home once. And she wasn't fat! Crack head would be the right term.

    I don't think you know how many ppl the USA has? To be getting a number like that. We have 315 million ppl.


    315 million? Consider the foreign, minors, seniors, and unemployed. Oh, and in 2011, 45% of households didn't pay tax, due to being under the minimum income line.

    Another point: the majority of the obese fall into the non-paying bracket. Meaning everyone else is paying for their healthcare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 5:51 AM GMT
    WickedRyan saidAre you joking?This is a free Republic.The government has no right to tell any adult American what they can eat.


    Though I'm not American, after reading your comment I have few doubts...

    you are most likely right...your govt. has no right on people about what they eat...but my question is why marijuana & cocaine are banned but not tobacco? the later causes more death than the former two combined!...What gave your govt. a right to ban the former two but allow tobacco?
    according to your comment, govt. has no right to ban either marijuana nor cocaine! because it's people choice to have them just like tobacco!...

    Tobacco isn't banned because it is much safer?(there are some researches which claims tobacco is more dangerous) or is it because, your govt. is afraid to ban because the people who run the govt. themselves are addicted to tobacco? or they are afraid that people may be outraged?

    Looks like your comment is ambiguous & appear to be both right & wrong at same time!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 6:05 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    may11 said
    Medjai said
    may11 said
    Can't compare drugs with obesity. Obesity will kill you and only you. Drugs usually can kill more than just the user. I don't know where you are getting the $500 number? But it doesn't add up. The day the USA stops taking money from the poor from this nation and sending it as "foreign aid" to the rich in other countries. Well than we can takle this issue.


    How do drugs kill more than the user? Unless they're smoked, drugs are pretty personal, except for the social cost.

    I got it by dividing $7 billion by the number of US taxpayers.



    DWI. It hit home once. And she wasn't fat! Crack head would be the right term.

    I don't think you know how many ppl the USA has? To be getting a number like that. We have 315 million ppl.


    315 million? Consider the foreign, minors, seniors, and unemployed. Oh, and in 2011, 45% of households didn't pay tax, due to being under the minimum income line.

    Another point: the majority of the obese fall into the non-paying bracket. Meaning everyone else is paying for their healthcare.




    Like I said bubba, under half that number are actual taxpayers. Don't feel like keep explaining my point. But I would say if it doesn't bother me (that I'm a USA taxpayer and a business owner) why would you bother? Why don't you cry about the USA sending billions of dollars to foreign nations who years after we go to war against?
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 29, 2013 6:14 AM GMT
    may11 said
    Like I said bubba, under half that number are actual taxpayers. Don't feel like keep explaining my point. But I would say if it doesn't bother me (that I'm a USA taxpayer and a business owner) why would you bother? Why don't you cry about the USA sending billions of dollars to foreign nations who years after we go to war against?


    That's another issue as well, but quite the red herring.

    45% of Americans are under the taxation line, 10% are unemployed, and a growing number are retired. Then there's the minors. That's precious few contributing taxpayers left.

    1 000 000 people die because of preventable, diet related diseases, and you're here saying, "we'll our foreign policy costs money too" like that at all addresses the issue. Like a screw up else ware somehow justifies this one too.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jan 29, 2013 6:40 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    may11 saidThe government has no rights nor business to be policing ppl's lives. If they want to be fat. That's their problem. If they want to be healthy that's their problem. We already have the government in our backyards we don't want it to be in hour houses either.


    That's the thing, it's not just their problem. The Globe and Mail estimates that it cost taxpayers $7 billion in 2010. That's $500 per US taxpayer.

    While guns can't draw the same parallel, drugs certainly can. Why does the US spend billions preventing drug use for citizen safety, yet allows 1 000 000 to die and cost Americans $7 billion due to obesity, and not step in on that at all?


    There is a lot of assumption that the government has motives that are logical, are actually the same as what are stated, and have the best interests of citizens at their heart.

    We spend billions MILITARIZING drugs...a huge segment of GNP that keeps prices high and provides unlimited, and unchecked funding for black ops.

    We spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions, treating preventable disease...heart, diabetes, cancer. Who exactly, wants to cook that goose?

    We subsidize and promote overseas, the producers of all this crap they call food. Wikileaks exposed cables threatening economic blackmail against any nations resisting OUR GMO CRAP. They did it anyway and good for them...China, Russia, India, EU.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jan 29, 2013 6:45 AM GMT
    I'm with you on the heart of the matter. But expecting to find logic in government action or inaction is a fool's game.

    I respect what you are doing; very much. I considered a similar path. Change is made one person at a time and I'm sure you'll find great satisfaction with each success. You'll also, hopefully, continue to be a great resource to this community on RJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 1:51 PM GMT
    Hmm....you know, any law that tries to tell people what they can eat is a problem, however, there are laws that gov't can pass about COMPANIES and what they put in their food. The banning of transfats is a good example. The banning of high fructose corn syrup would another good one.

    When I grew up most people were not obese or fat. Things were sweetened with plain old cane or beet sugar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2013 3:51 PM GMT
    wild_sky360 saidI'm with you on the heart of the matter. But expecting to find logic in government action or inaction is a fool's game.

    I respect what you are doing; very much. I considered a similar path. Change is made one person at a time and I'm sure you'll find great satisfaction with each success. You'll also, hopefully, continue to be a great resource to this community on RJ.


    ^^ Yes

    Why not tax breaks for those who can demonstrate great progress made through healthy eating, exercise and other healthy self-care choices? Too much bureaucracy?